A Consequential Perspective of Truthfulness
Sept 11, 2019 21:18:08 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 11, 2019 21:18:08 GMT -5
A Consequentialist Perspective of Truthfulness
Consequentialism
From a classical, consequentialist, perspective, the obligation to be truthful depends on what the results, or consequences of revealing a truth might be. Also relevant is whether the person or persons deserve to know the truth, which depend on the motive for asking or demanding truth fulness. In short, determining whether revealing truth is OK, depends on the consequences, and is completely opposed to the deontological and mindless adherence to unbendable rules. Consequentialism
is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
For example, lawyers and priests, as well as psychiatrists and psychologists, are sworn to confidentiality. But how how far that promise goes depends on the nature of what these professionals are asked to keep a secret. For example, suppose some patient or client confesses to a priest that he plans to slaughter people by setting off an explosive. Or suppose a psychologist is told that the patient will murder his wife as soon as he gets home? Or suppose that a person reveals that he or she is habitually involved in child abuse? Is the professional still morally bound to confidentiality? Someone deontologically following inflexible rules might say he is, while those basing moral decisions on consequences will let consequences guide their decision.
Another hypothetical is the physical effect that revealing a truth can have on a person. Will it provoke a heart attack, or nervous breakdown. What benefit is there in revealing it when it will almost certainly send the person to the grave? So once more, the virtue of a behavior must be determined by its consequences. If the consequences are detrimental, then revealing a truth becomes sinful or wrong.
This isn't to say that consequential reasoning is always right. Consider how it can go horribly wrong if one isn't careful:
Two examples of how consequentialism can go wrong are utilitarianism and hedonism.
Utilitarianism judges consequences by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard.
Hedonism, on the other hand, considers something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain. So torture is good because it might provide pleasure? Adultery is good for the same reason? Serial killing? Obviously this approach constitutes amorality and can lead to social chaos as everyone becomes a law unto himself.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be. Indeed, no one except God, can know the distant future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism